DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/10/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-19 is/are now pending in the application. Applicant's amendments have addressed all informalities as previously set forth in the non-final action mailed on 04/13/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1 recites
A method
for
estimating uncertainty of an output of a velocity model of a subsurface region,
the method comprising:
receiving seismic data;
constructing a velocity model of the subsurface region based on the received seismic data;
performing a seismic migration of the received seismic data based on the constructed velocity model to obtain migrated seismic data;
generating a semblance panel from the migrated seismic data; and
taking a derivative of the output of the velocity model
to
estimate an uncertainty of the output of the velocity model based on the generated semblance panel,
wherein
the estimated uncertainty comprises
a lower velocity bound and an upper velocity bound for a seismic velocity estimated from the velocity model at one or more depths of the subsurface region
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
Independent Claim(s) 8 recites
A method
estimating uncertainty of an estimated seismic velocity produced by a velocity model of a subsurface region,
the method comprising:
receiving seismic data;
constructing a velocity model of the subsurface region based on the received seismic data;
performing a seismic migration of the received seismic data based on the constructed velocity model to obtain migrated seismic data;
and
taking a derivative of the migrated seismic data
to
determine, using the velocity model and the migrated seismic data,
an estimated seismic velocity of the subsurface region at a given depth,
a minimum velocity bound at the given depth that is less than the estimated seismic velocity,
and
a maximum velocity bound at the given depth that is greater than the estimated seismic velocity
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)]
Independent Claim(s) 16 recites
estimating uncertainty of an output of a velocity model of a subsurface region,
receives seismic data;
constructs a velocity model of the subsurface region based on the received seismic data;
performs a seismic migration of the received seismic data based on the constructed velocity model to obtain migrated seismic data;
generates a semblance panel from the migrated seismic data;
and
takes a derivative of the output of the velocity model
to
estimate an uncertainty of the output of the velocity model based on the generated semblance panel
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, 16, Claim(s) 2-6, 9-15, 17-19 recite(s)
generating one or more seismic gathers using the constructed velocity model.
the semblance panel is generated from the one or more seismic gathers.
estimating the uncertainty of a seismic velocity estimated from the velocity model,
the uncertainty comprises a lower bound and a separate upper bound.
a first uncertainty window extends between the lower bound and the estimated seismic velocity and a second uncertainty window extends between the estimated seismic velocity and the upper bound.
a first uncertainty window extends between the minimum velocity bound and the estimated seismic velocity, and a second uncertainty window extends between the estimated seismic velocity and the maximum velocity bound.
a width of the first uncertainty window and a width of the second uncertainty window vary across different depths of the subsurface region.
the estimated seismic velocity comprises a point along a seismic velocity curve.
the minimum velocity bound is associated with a first peak along the derivative of the migrated seismic data,
the maximum velocity bound is associated with a second peak along the derivative of the migrated seismic data that is adjacent to the first peak.
the estimated seismic velocity is associated with a trough along the derivative of the migrated seismic data that is positioned between the first peak and the second peak.
generating a semblance panel from the migrated seismic data,
the semblance panel is generated from the one or more seismic gathers.
the output comprises an estimated seismic velocity estimated from the velocity model,
the uncertainty comprises a lower bound and a separate upper bound
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. A system, the system comprising: a processor; a non-transitory memory; and an application stored in the non-transitory memory that, when executed by the processor:);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (i.e. Generic data acquisition/measurement (e.g., captured by one or more seismic receivers)); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. associated with a subsurface region).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure; generic seismic receivers)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOMEL ET AL. (Fomel, Sergey, and Evgeny Landa. "Structural uncertainty of time-migrated seismic images." Journal of Applied Geophysics 101 (2014): 27-30.) (hereinafter “FOMEL”) in view of PADHI ET AL. (US 20210208295 A1) (hereinafter “PADHI”).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, FOMEL teaches velocity continuation for estimating velocity uncertainties and corresponding structural uncertainties in time-migrated images and the BRI of:
A method
for
estimating uncertainty of an output of a velocity model of a subsurface region (See, e.g., Section(s) ABSTRACT),
the method comprising:
receiving seismic data associated with a subsurface region (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1);
constructing a velocity model of the subsurface region based on the received seismic data (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2);
performing a seismic migration of the received seismic data based on the constructed velocity model to obtain migrated seismic data (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3);
generating a semblance data from the migrated seismic data (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6);
and
taking a derivative of the output of the velocity model (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6)
to
estimate an uncertainty of the output of the velocity model based on the generated semblance data (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6),
wherein
the estimated uncertainty comprises
a lower velocity bound and an upper velocity bound for a seismic velocity estimated from the velocity model at one or more depths of the subsurface region (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6).
However, FOMEL is lacking the explicit language of:
one or more seismic receivers;
semblance panel.
PADHI teaches updating an initial velocity model based on a plurality of data points selected from the semblance panel to provide an updated velocity model and the BRI of:
one or more seismic receivers (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1);
semblance panel (See, e.g., Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify FOMEL to include one or more seismic receivers; semblance panel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify FOMEL because it would be beneficial to updating an initial velocity model based on a plurality of data points selected from the semblance panel to provide an updated velocity model. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 8, FOMEL teaches velocity continuation for estimating velocity uncertainties and corresponding structural uncertainties in time-migrated images and the BRI of:
A method
estimating uncertainty of an estimated seismic velocity produced by a velocity model of a subsurface region (See, e.g., Section(s) ABSTRACT),
the method comprising:
receiving seismic data associated with a subsurface region (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1);
constructing a velocity model of the subsurface region based on the received seismic data (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2);
performing a seismic migration of the received seismic data based on the constructed velocity model to obtain migrated seismic data (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3);
and
taking a derivative of the migrated seismic data (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6)
to
determine, using the velocity model and the migrated seismic data,
an estimated seismic velocity of the subsurface region at a given depth (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6),
a minimum velocity bound at the given depth that is less than the estimated seismic velocity (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6),
and
a maximum velocity bound at the given depth that is greater than the estimated seismic velocity (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6).
However, FOMEL is lacking the explicit language of:
one or more seismic receivers.
PADHI teaches updating an initial velocity model based on a plurality of data points selected from the semblance panel to provide an updated velocity model and the BRI of:
one or more seismic receivers (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify FOMEL to include one or more seismic receivers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify FOMEL because it would be beneficial to updating an initial velocity model based on a plurality of data points selected from the semblance panel to provide an updated velocity model. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 16, FOMEL teaches velocity continuation for estimating velocity uncertainties and corresponding structural uncertainties in time-migrated images and the BRI of:
estimating uncertainty of an output of a velocity model of a subsurface region (See, e.g., Section(s) ABSTRACT),
receives seismic data associated with a subsurface region (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1);
constructs a velocity model of the subsurface region based on the received seismic data (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1, 2);
performs a seismic migration of the received seismic data based on the constructed velocity model to obtain migrated seismic data (See, e.g., Fig(s). 3);
generates a semblance data from the migrated seismic data (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6);
and
takes a derivative of the output of the velocity model (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6)
to
estimate an uncertainty of the output of the velocity model based on the generated semblance data (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6).
However, FOMEL is lacking the explicit language of:
A system, the system comprising: a processor; a non-transitory memory; and an application stored in the non-transitory memory that, when executed by the processor;
one or more seismic receivers;
semblance panel.
PADHI teaches updating an initial velocity model based on a plurality of data points selected from the semblance panel to provide an updated velocity model and the BRI of:
A system, the system comprising: a processor; a non-transitory memory; and an application stored in the non-transitory memory that, when executed by the processor (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1);
one or more seismic receivers (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1);
semblance panel (See, e.g., Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify FOMEL to include a system, the system comprising: a processor; a non-transitory memory; and an application stored in the non-transitory memory that, when executed by the processor; one or more seismic receivers; semblance panel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify FOMEL because it would be beneficial to updating an initial velocity model based on a plurality of data points selected from the semblance panel to provide an updated velocity model. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 2, 14, FOMEL, PADHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
FOMEL further teaches the BRI of:
generating one or more seismic gathers using the constructed velocity model (See, e.g., Fig(s). 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 3, FOMEL, PADHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
FOMEL further teaches the BRI of:
the semblance panel is generated from the one or more seismic gathers (See, e.g., Fig(s). 4).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, FOMEL, PADHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
FOMEL further teaches the BRI of:
estimating the uncertainty of a seismic velocity estimated from the velocity model (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6),
wherein
the uncertainty comprises
a lower bound and a separate upper bound (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 5, 18, FOMEL, PADHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
FOMEL further teaches the BRI of:
a first uncertainty window extends between the lower bound and the estimated seismic velocity and a second uncertainty window extends between the estimated seismic velocity and the upper bound (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 12, FOMEL, PADHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
FOMEL further teaches the BRI of:
a first uncertainty window extends between the minimum velocity bound and the estimated seismic velocity, and a second uncertainty window extends between the estimated seismic velocity and the maximum velocity bound (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, 13, 19, FOMEL, PADHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
FOMEL further teaches the BRI of:
the estimated seismic velocity comprises a point along a seismic velocity curve (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 9, FOMEL, PADHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
FOMEL further teaches the BRI of:
the estimated seismic velocity comprises a point along a seismic velocity curve, and taking a derivative of the migrated seismic data to identify the minimum velocity bound and the maximum velocity bound (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 10, FOMEL, PADHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
FOMEL further teaches the BRI of:
the minimum velocity bound is associated with a first peak along the derivative of the migrated seismic data, the maximum velocity bound is associated with a second peak along the derivative of the migrated seismic data that is adjacent to the first peak (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 11, FOMEL, PADHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
FOMEL further teaches the BRI of:
the estimated seismic velocity is associated with a trough along the derivative of the migrated seismic data that is positioned between the first peak and the second peak (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6)).
With respect to Claim(s) 15, FOMEL, PADHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
FOMEL further teaches the BRI of:
generating a semblance panel from the migrated seismic data, wherein the semblance panel is generated from the one or more seismic gathers (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6).
With respect to Claim(s) 17, FOMEL, PADHI teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
FOMEL further teaches the BRI of:
wherein
the output comprises an estimated seismic velocity estimated from the velocity model, and wherein the uncertainty comprises a lower bound and a separate upper bound (See, e.g., Section(s) 3; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 06/10/2026, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 6-11, filed 06/10/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“Rejections Under 35 USC 101
The Office Action rejected claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to abstract ideas (mathematical concepts and/or mental processes) without significantly more, relying on the 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance. Office Action, pp. 2-5. The Office Action characterized the additional claim elements as: (i) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer under MPEP § 2106.05(f); (ii) insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of generic data acquisition by seismic receivers under MPEP § 2106.05(g); and (iii) a general linkage of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (a subsurface region) under MPEP § 2106.05(h). Id. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 as amended.
The subject matter eligibility analysis under Section 101 follows the two-step framework described in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), and as further refined by the USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("2019 Revised Guidance"). Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, Step 1 asks whether the claim falls within a statutory category; Step 2A asks whether the claim recites a judicial exception (Prong 1) and, if so, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (Prong 2); and Step 2B asks whether any additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In addition, the mere fact that a claim uses mathematical operations does not automatically render the claim patent ineligible, as "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981). Moreover, "inventions with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace are not likely to be so abstract that they override the statutory language and framework of the Patent Act." Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010).”.
-Applicant states
“Step 1
Claim 1 is an independent claim from which claims 2-7 depend. Claim 1 is amended by this response to recite, in part, "receiving seismic data associated with a subsurface region and captured by one or more seismic receivers," "constructing a velocity model of the subsurface region based on the received seismic data," "performing a seismic migration of the received seismic data based on the constructed velocity model to obtain migrated seismic data," and "taking a derivative of the output of the velocity model to estimate an uncertainty of the output of the velocity model based on the generated semblance panel, wherein the estimated uncertainty comprises a lower velocity bound and an upper velocity bound for a seismic velocity estimated from the velocity model at one or more depths of the subsurface region. Claim 7 is cancelled by this response to ensure consistency with claim 1.
Claim 8 is an independent claim from which claims 2-15 depend. Claim 8 is amended by this response to recite, in part, "receiving seismic data associated with a subsurface region and captured by one or more seismic receivers," "constructing a velocity model of the subsurface region based on the received seismic data," "performing a seismic migration of the received seismic data based on the constructed velocity model to obtain migrated seismic data," and "taking a derivative of the migrated seismic data to determine, using the velocity model and the migrated seismic data, an estimated seismic velocity of the subsurface region at a given depth, a minimum velocity bound at the given depth that is less than the estimated seismic velocity, and a maximum velocity bound at the given depth that is greater than the estimated seismic velocity." Claims 10, 11, and 15 are amended by this response to ensure consistency with claim 8.
Claim 16 is an independent claim from which claims 17-20 depend. Claim 16 is amended by this response to recite, in part, "an application stored in the non-transitory memory that, when executed by the processor...receives seismic data associated with a subsurface region and captured by one or more seismic receivers," "constructs a velocity model of the subsurface region based on the received seismic data," "performs a seismic migration of the received seismic data based on the constructed velocity model to obtain migrated seismic data," "generates a semblance panel from the migrated seismic data," and "takes a derivative of the output of the velocity model to estimate an uncertainty of the output of the velocity model based on the generated semblance panel." Claim 20 is cancelled by this response to ensure consistency with claim 16.
No new matter is introduced by the amendments to claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 16, and each is fully supported by the application as originally filed. For example, the amendments to claims 1, 8, and 16 are supported by paras. [0004], [0024], [0054]- [0056], and FIGS. 7 and 8 of the application as originally filed.
Claims 1-15 are directed to methods comprising a series of steps, which fall within the statutory process category. Claims 16-20 are directed to a system comprising a processor, non-transitory memory, and an application, which fall within the statutory machine category. Step 1 is satisfied.”.
Examiner agrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
-Applicant states
“Step 2A, Prong 2
Even assuming arguendo that any abstract idea is recited, the claims as amended integrate that abstract idea into a practical application of the type identified in MPEP § 2106.05(a) as reflecting an improvement to a technology or technical field. The analysis employed by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in closely analogous cases from Art Unit 2857 and related art units supports this conclusion.
Particularly, in Ex parte Gert-Jan Adriaan Van Groenestyjn, Appeal No. 2019- 003011, Application No. 14/619,487 (PTAB Apr. 17, 2020), the Board reversed a 101 rejection of claims directed to a method for processing seismic data from a plurality of seismic receivers and seismic sources to generate an improved seismic image better indicative of a subterranean formation. The Board found that "the additional elements recited in claim 1 taken together apply the method, in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the mathematical concepts exception," and that the claims were analogous to the claims found patent eligible in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), because they involved "a new and useful technique that involves a particular combination of seismic receivers and seismic sources, receiving seismic data from those devices, and processing the seismic data received in a specific new way" to generate an improved technical output in the field. Similarly, in Ex parte Jaewoo Park, Appeal No. 2024- 000459, Application No. 16/773,604 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2025), the Board reversed a 101 rejection of claims directed to methods of estimating residual moveout error in seismic data for geophysical prospecting, finding that the specific benefits of the claimed method steps for hydrocarbon discovery and extraction constitute integration of the claimed method into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
The present claims are at least as well-integrated into a practical application as the claims in these analogous decisions. Independent claims 1, 8, and 16 as amended each recite: the receipt of seismic data captured by one or more physical seismic receivers from a physical subsurface region of the Earth; the construction of a velocity model from that physical data; the performance of seismic migration to obtain migrated seismic data; the generation of a semblance panel from the migrated seismic data; and the estimation of velocity model output uncertainty by taking a derivative of the velocity model output (or migrated seismic data) and identifying the resulting lower velocity bound and upper velocity bound.
In addition, the specification confirms that the concrete, real-world output of this process is a pair of quantitative velocity bounds that bracket the estimated seismic velocity at each depth of the subsurface region, which may be used for bulk rock volume (BRV) estimation, volumetric analysis, and the planning of wells extending through the subsurface region. See Spec., para. [0043]. This is precisely the type of concrete technological output, directly tied to the discovery and extraction of hydrocarbons from a physical subsurface formation, that the Board has found to constitute integration into a practical application.
The Board's analysis in Van Groenestijn is directly on point: the Board held that a claim requiring a "particular combination of seismic receivers and seismic sources" and generating a concrete, improved output for seismic analysis of a subterranean formation integrates the claimed abstract idea into a practical application, citing the holding in SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'/ Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2010), that physical measurement devices integral to the claimed method "place a meaningful limit on the scope of the claims." The one or more seismic receivers recited in claims 1, 8, and 16, which capture the physical seismic data that forms the input for all subsequent processing steps, are machines that are integral to the claims and place a meaningful limit on their scope in exactly the manner recognized in SiRF Tech.
Contrary to the Office Action's finding under MPEP § 2106.05(g), the receipt of physical seismic data captured by one or more seismic receivers is not insignificant extra-solution activity. It is the non-abstract, physically grounded input that all subsequent processing steps transform into the velocity uncertainty output, and without which the claimed methods cannot be performed. As Appellant in the analogous Van Groenestijn case correctly stated, the physical seismic receivers and seismic sources are "physical objects" without which "the claimed method cannot be performed." The physical receipt of seismic data from a physical subsurface region is therefore integral to the claims, not an appendage to them.
Contrary to the Office Action's finding under MPEP § 2106.05(h), the association with a subsurface region is not merely a field-of-use limitation. The subsurface region is the physical object whose seismic velocity properties are being estimated and bounded by the claimed method. The output velocity bounds characterize physical properties of the physical Earth at specific depths, and those outputs are used for the physical activities of well planning, volumetric analysis, and BRV estimation in a real, physical subsurface region. This specific nexus between the claimed processing steps and a real-world physical object differentiates the claims from those involving a mere field-of- use limitation.
Contrary to the Office Action's finding under MPEP § 2106.05(f), the claims do not merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea with generic computer functions. The specific operations of performing seismic migration on physical seismic data, generating a semblance panel from the migrated seismic data, and taking a derivative of the velocity model output to identify peaks of the derivative curve as lower and upper velocity bounds are not generic computer functions such as storing, transmitting, or retrieving data. As described in the specification, a continuing problem in the field of seismic imaging has been the inability to quantify the uncertainty of a velocity model's seismic velocity estimate at a given depth without resorting to well-tie-based analysis that is limited to discrete depths where well data correspondence with seismic data can be established. See Spec., para. [0023]. The claimed method solves that problem through a specific technical approach that does not require well data and that, for the first time, quantifies velocity uncertainty at any depth using derivative analysis of a semblance panel generated from migrated seismic data. The ordered combination of claim elements is directed to that specific technical improvement.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 as amended integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2, and are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The analysis need not proceed to Step 2B. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Examiner’s BRI of the claimed inventions is generic computer structure being used as a tool to generically receive seismic data, perform mathatical analysis utilizing the generically received seismic to output a result data corresponding to ‘uncertainty’.
When examining step 2A Prong 2, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if the identified abstract idea has been practically applied in a particular way in a particular technology. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination with the identified abstract idea, do not add anything beyond mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding generic ‘apply it’ language, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, and generically linking the identified abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use.
The claimed invention is not interpreted as being directed towards improving the function of a particular type of seismic measurement device(s)/component(s). The claimed invention is directed towards performing generic data acquisition of seismic data utilizing conventional/generic seismic measurement device(s)/component(s) for purpose of facilitating a mathematical algorithm.
Examiner relies on the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2-Prong Analysis) and precedential cases utilizing said guidance. Any remarks pertaining to case law not utilizing the most current Patent Eligibility Guidance is moot. Any remarks pertaining to non-precedential case law is also moot.
See updated rejection(s) above necessitated by amendment.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 11-18, filed 06/10/2026, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“Rejections Under 35 USC 103 Over Fomel and Padhi
The Office Action rejected claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Fomel in view of Padhi. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections of these claims as amended.
Fomel is directed to "estimating velocity uncertainties and corresponding structural uncertainties in time-migrated images" using the technique of velocity continuation for prestack time migration. Fomel defines structural uncertainty as the product of velocity picking uncertainty and structural sensitivity, where structural sensitivity describes the degree to which the positions of reflectors in a time-migrated image shift in response to changes in migration velocity, and is measured using the derivatives at/dv and ax/dv, which correspond to the slopes of events in a velocity continuation image volume evaluated at the picked migration velocity. See Fomel, Sections 2-4, Figs. 5, 7, 8. The velocity picking uncertainty in Fomel is computed using a weighted variance formula applied to the normalized semblance distribution around the picked velocity trend (see Fomel, Section 3, Eq. (7), Fig. 6), and Fomel's final outputs are structural displacements, ot and ox, representing the uncertainty in the spatial positions of reflectors in the time-migrated seismic image, as shown in Figures 7 and 8 of Fomel. Fomel does not output a minimum or maximum velocity bound that brackets an estimated seismic velocity at a given depth of a subsurface region, and Fomel's derivative analysis is directed to measuring structural position sensitivity, not to identifying peaks of a velocity derivative curve as velocity bounds.
In addition, Padhi is directed to iterative migration velocity optimization for vertical seismic profile (VSP) surveys using semblance, and discloses a method in which VSP data output by seismic receivers positioned at different depths within a wellbore is migrated using an initial velocity model, migrated common receiver gathers (CRGs) are sorted and stacked to produce common image gathers (CIGs), and a semblance panel is constructed having the stacked depth migration values plotted as contours on a first axis for velocity ratio (vr) and a second axis for true depth (Zt). See Padhi, Abstract; paras. [0053]-[0054], [0067]-[0071]; Figs. 7-8. A user knowledgeable about VSP studies views the semblance panel and manually selects discrete (Zt, vr) data points from it via a graphical user interface, and the initial velocity model is then updated by dividing the RMS velocity profile by the selected velocity ratios, sample-wise, at various CIG locations; this process of migrating with the updated velocity model and selecting new data points from an updated semblance panel is repeated iteratively until the CIG reflection events are sufficiently flat. See Padhi, paras. [0073]-[0078]; Figs. 7-8 (operations 812-822). Padhi's purpose is to optimize the accuracy of the velocity model through iterative user-guided updates, not to estimate the uncertainty of the velocity model's output by identifying velocity bounds via derivative analysis.”.
-Applicant states
“Claims 1-7 and 16-20
As described above, amended independent claim 1 includes estimating the uncertainty of the velocity model's estimated seismic velocity output by taking a derivative of that output and using the resulting derivative curve to produce a lower velocity bound and an upper velocity bound that bracket the estimated seismic velocity at one or more depths of a physical subsurface region of the Earth. Additionally, as described above, amended independent claim 16 includes an application stored in a non-transitory memory that, when executed by a processor estimates the uncertainty of the velocity model's estimated seismic velocity output by taking a derivative of that output and uses the resulting derivative curve to produce a lower velocity bound and an upper velocity bound that bracket the estimated seismic velocity at one or more depths of a physical subsurface region of the Earth.
With respect to claims 1 and 16, the Office Action alleged that Fomel teaches the preamble and limitations of receiving seismic data, constructing a velocity model, performing seismic migration, generating a semblance panel from migrated seismic data, and estimating an uncertainty of the output of the velocity model based on the generated semblance panel. See Office Action, pp. 6-7. The Office Action further alleged that Fomel lacks a processor, non-transitory memory, and an application stored in non-transitory memory, as well as one or more seismic receivers, and that Padhi supplies these elements from its Figure 1. See Office Action, pp. 7-8. However, Fomel does not teach estimating the uncertainty of the estimated seismic velocity output of a velocity model by identifying lower and upper velocity bounds that bracket the estimated seismic velocity at one or more depths. Fomel expressly states that its purpose is to estimate the degree of "structural uncertainty" in time-migrated seismic images, defined as the positional or spatial uncertainty of reflectors in the migrated image, specifically how much the positions of reflectors shift in response to errors in migration velocity. See Fomel, Abstract; Section 1 ("we define structural uncertainty as a product of velocity picking uncertainty and structural sensitivity"). Fomel's final outputs are structural position displacements ot and ox (representing displacement of reflector positions in time and lateral location, respectively), as shown in Fomel's Figures 7 and 8, computed as ot = (at/av) * ov and ox = (ax/av) * ov using Eqs. (8) and (9) of Fomel. These structural position displacements are fundamentally different from the lower velocity bound and upper velocity bound recited in claim 1, which are seismic velocity values that bracket the estimated seismic velocity of the velocity model at one or more depths of the subsurface region. Fomel asks how much the positions of reflectors in the migrated image might shift due to velocity error; claim 1 asks what range of seismic velocity values could be accurate at a given depth. These are categorically different technical questions, and Fomel's velocity continuation framework answers only the former.
In addition, Fomel does not teach taking a derivative of the output of the velocity model to estimate velocity uncertainty. The derivative analysis in Fomel (Eqs. (2) and (3), Fig. 5) is directed to measuring structural sensitivity, specifically computing the slopes at/av and ax/av of events in the velocity continuation cube C(t,x,v), where these slopes describe how much the time-domain position (t) and lateral position (x) of a reflector change per unit change in migration velocity v. See Fomel, Section 2, Eqs. (2)- (5). These structural sensitivity slopes are not derivatives of the output of a velocity model taken for the purpose of identifying peaks that define lower and upper velocity bounds. Fomel's velocity uncertainty ov is separately computed using the statistical weighted variance formula of Eq. (7), which integrates the product of the squared deviation from the picked velocity and the normalized semblance, and is thus a statistical measure of the width of the semblance distribution around the picked velocity, not the result of derivative analysis. Neither Fomel's structural sensitivity derivatives nor its statistical velocity uncertainty formula teaches taking a derivative of the velocity model output to identify flanking peaks as lower and upper velocity bounds.
Further, Fomel's "semblance scan" (Fig. 6) is not the same as the semblance panel recited in claim 1. Fomel's Figure 6 shows a "semblance scan produced in the process of velocity continuation" from which a migration velocity trend is picked, and from which the velocity picking uncertainty ov is computed statistically using Eq. (7). The semblance panel of claim 1, by contrast, is a panel of semblance energy as a function of gamma (an estimate of the error normalized to 1 of the velocity model) and depth, wherein the width of the central energy envelope at a given depth corresponds to the degree of uncertainty in the output of the velocity model at that depth, as described in paragraphs [0051]-[0053] and Figure 6 of the application as filed. The purpose and technical context of Fomel's semblance scan (picking a migration velocity for time migration and computing a statistical velocity uncertainty for use in structural sensitivity analysis) is different from the purpose and technical context of the semblance panel in the claimed method (estimating the output uncertainty of a velocity model by generating a bounded semblance energy envelope and applying derivative analysis to define velocity bounds).
Still further, the proposed combination of Fomel and Padhi lacks an adequate motivation to arrive at the limitations of claim 1. The Office Action states that one of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify Fomel to include Padhi's processor, memory, and seismic receivers because "it would be beneficial to updating an initial velocity model based on a plurality of data points selected from the semblance panel to provide an updated velocity model." Office Action, p. 8. This motivation is drawn entirely from Padhi's goal of iteratively improving the accuracy of a velocity model, which is a different from the technical objective achieved by claim 1, which is estimating the uncertainty of the velocity model's seismic velocity output. One of ordinary skill would not combine a technique directed to analyzing the structural positional uncertainty of time-migrated images (Fomel) with a technique directed to iteratively optimizing a VSP velocity model (Padhi) and thereby arrive at a method for estimating the output uncertainty of a velocity model using derivative-based identification of lower and upper velocity bounds. The proposed combination does not lead to the specific technical subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits Fomel and Padhi fail to teach or suggest estimating the uncertainty of the velocity model's estimated seismic velocity output by taking a derivative of that output and using the resulting derivative curve to produce a lower velocity bound and an upper velocity bound that bracket the estimated seismic velocity at one or more depths of a physical subsurface region of the Earth, as included in amended independent claim 1, or an application stored in a non-transitory memory that, when executed by a processor estimates the uncertainty of the velocity model's estimated seismic velocity output by taking a derivative of that output and uses the resulting derivative curve to produce a lower velocity bound and an upper velocity bound that bracket the estimated seismic velocity at one or more depths of a physical subsurface region of the Earth, as included in amended independent claim 16.
For at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1 and 16 are allowable under 35 USC 103 over Fomel and Padhi. Remaining dependent claims 2-6 and 17-19 are also allowable over Fomel and Padhi in view of their dependence from allowable independent claims 1 and 16. Applicant therefore requests withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1-7 and 16-19 under 35 USC 103.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
The directed towards the amended limitations:
[Amended Claim 1]
“…
generating a semblance panel from the migrated seismic data;
and
taking a derivative of the output of the velocity model to estimate an uncertainty of the output of the velocity model based on the generated semblance panel,
wherein the estimated uncertainty comprises a lower velocity bound and an upper velocity bound for a seismic velocity estimated from the velocity model at one or more depths of the subsurface region
..”
[Amended Claim 16]
“…
generates a semblance panel from the migrated seismic data;
and
takes a derivative of the output of the velocity model to estimate an uncertainty of the output of the velocity model based on the generated semblance panel
..”
Examiner’s BRI of the term ‘semblance panel’ is a migration of stacked seismic data.
FOMEL at least teaches:
[Fig. 1] velocity continuation cube for prestack time migration
[Fig. 2] migration velocity picked form velocity continuation
[Fig. 3] seismic prestack time-migration image generated by velocity continuation
[Fig. 4] common-image gather and time slice from velocity continuation with over-laid time-migration velocity.
Therefore, examiner interprets FOMEL to teach the BRI of a generated ‘semblance panel’.
PADHI (previously cited as prior art) further teaches the explicit language of a ‘semblance panel’.
Therefore, FOMEL in combination with PADHI teaches the BRI of ‘generating a semblance panel from the migrated seismic data’.
FOMEL further at least teaches:
[Eq. 7; Figs. 6; Section 3] uncertainty in velocity picking based on a derivative of velocity from a velocity minimum to a velocity max at a given depth.
Therefore, FOMEL in combination with PADHI teaches the BRI of ‘taking a derivative of the output of the velocity model to estimate an uncertainty of the output of the velocity model based on the generated semblance panel’.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify FOMEL because it would be beneficial to updating an initial velocity model based on a plurality of data points selected from the semblance panel to provide an updated velocity model. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
FOMEL, PADHI are analogous arts as for being from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem) and/or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
See updated rejection(s) above necessitated by amendment.
-Applicant states
“Claims 8-15
As described above, amended independent claim 8 includes using both the velocity model and the migrated seismic data together to simultaneously determine, at a given depth, an estimated seismic velocity together with a minimum velocity bound and a maximum velocity bound that bracket it, where those bounds are specifically identified by taking a derivative of the migrated seismic data.
With respect to claim 8, the Office Action alleged that Fomel teaches estimating uncertainty of an estimated seismic velocity produced by a velocity model of a subsurface region, and determining an estimated seismic velocity at a given depth, a minimum velocity bound less than the estimated seismic velocity, and a maximum velocity bound greater than the estimated seismic velocity, citing Fomel's Section 3 and Figure 6. See Office Action, pp. 8-12. The Office Action alleged that Padhi supplies the one or more seismic receivers element. However, Fomel does not teach determining a minimum velocity bound and a maximum velocity bound that bracket an estimated seismic velocity at a given depth of a subsurface region. Fomel's velocity uncertainty ov (computed using Eq. (7)) is a statistical measure of the spread of the semblance distribution around the picked migration velocity, and is used solely as an intermediate quantity in computing the structural position displacements ot and ox shown in Figures 7 and 8 of Fomel. Fomel does not output a minimum velocity bound and a maximum velocity bound that bracket an estimated seismic velocity at a given depth; it outputs spatial displacements of reflector positions in the time-migrated image. The structural position uncertainty ov in Fomel is not a velocity bound at all, as it is used to compute image-domain displacements (ot, ox) and is never expressed as a velocity value that brackets the estimated seismic velocity from below or above.
In addition, Fomel does not teach taking a derivative of the migrated seismic data to identify the minimum velocity bound and the maximum velocity bound. The Office Action maps the derivative limitation of claim 8 to Fomel's Section 3 and Figure 6. Office Action, pp. 11-12. Fomel's Figure 6 shows a semblance scan used for velocity picking, and the velocity uncertainty ov from Section 3 is computed using the statistical weighted variance formula of Eq. (7), not by taking a derivative. The derivative analysis in Fomel (Eqs. (2)-(3) and Fig. 5) is directed to computing structural sensitivity slopes at/av and ax/av in the velocity continuation cube, not to identifying peaks of a derivative curve of the migrated seismic data that flank the estimated seismic velocity as minimum and maximum velocity bounds. Neither the derivative analysis of Fomel nor any other aspect of Fomel's disclosure teaches or suggests this specific technique.
Further, the motivation to combine Fomel and Padhi to arrive at claim 8 is no more persuasive than with respect to claims 1 and 16. Padhi's semblance panel, which plots velocity ratio (vr) versus true depth (Zt) as contours (see Padhi, para. [0067], Fig. 7), is used by a user to manually select discrete (Zt, vr) data points from which the initial velocity model's RMS velocity profile is updated by division by the selected velocity ratios (see Padhi, paras. [0073]-[0074]). Nothing in Padhi's manual velocity-model- update methodology teaches taking a derivative of migrated seismic data to identify peaks that flank the estimated seismic velocity as minimum and maximum velocity bounds. Adding Padhi's seismic receivers and computer hardware to Fomel's structural uncertainty analysis framework does not produce the specific velocity bounding technique of claim 8. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits Fomel and Padhi fail to teach or suggest using both the velocity model and the migrated seismic data together to simultaneously determine, at a given depth, an estimated seismic velocity together with a minimum velocity bound and a maximum velocity bound that bracket it, where those bounds are specifically identified by taking a derivative of the migrated seismic data, as included in amended independent claim 8.
For at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 8 is allowable under 35 USC 103 over Fomel and Padhi.
Dependent claims 9-15 are also allowable over Fomel and Padhi in view of their dependence from allowable independent claim 8. Applicant therefore requests withdrawal of the rejections of claims 8-15 under 35 USC 103.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
See above response.
See updated rejection(s) above necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights